2026:JHHC:14812 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1468 of 2026 Dularam Murmu, aged about 31 years, Son of Devilal Manjhi … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mehilal Manjhi, S/o:- Late Haradhna Manjhi … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Advocate --- 05/14.05.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2025 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 385 of 2025 arising out of Peterwar P.S. Case No. 110 of 2025 for the alleged offence registered under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and charge has been framed under Section 103 and 108 of the B.N.S. pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim. She submits that the marriage was solemnized about 11 years ago and as per the allegation, the accused and the other family members have been torturing the victim and a panchayati had also taken place and it was agreed that the petitioner will not torture the victim. It has been also alleged that the petitioner used to assault the victim in drunken state. It has been alleged that on the alleged date of incident, the victim was assaulted, strangulated and was found hanged. Learned counsel submits that the charge has been framed under Section 103 and 108 of BNS vide order dated 12.12.2025. She also submits that as per the post mortem report no external injury has been found. 2026:JHHC:14812 2 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per inquest report there are number of ante-mortem injuries which shows that she was assaulted. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegations made against the petitioner and also considering the inquest report, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 14.05.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-16.05.2026